Havin' A Brew on Your Stoop May Cost Ya.

isn't today your court date?

Dude, I LOVE the comments from that article!

"let me get this straight. if there is no gate in front of your stoop its public property? that is the stupidest thing i've ever heard. dude shoulda got all rick james on those cops."

Could you fucking imagine?

brooklynpotter wrote: isn't today your court date?

December 11th

(I wonder if borrowing your boater again would make me look more distinguished in court?)

Well, this saga continues...

Had my fourth court appearance today (see story link below) and I shall be back for my fifth trip to the courthouse next Tuesday...the NY Daily News also continues to send a reporter and photographer to every appearance...

http://www.brooklynpaper.com/stories/32/6/32_6_gk_kimber.html

It's been an eye-opening experience and I'm fortunate to have found a great lawyer with an equal level of intolerance for useless bureaucracy. If you've never been to criminal court, do what you can to stay out of trouble -- it is sad place littered with people who have found (or put) themselves in a tough spot without the time or resources to properly defend themselves.

The way officers of the court and judges use the euphemism of "Do you want to make this ticket go away today?" as a stand in for "Just plead guilty" is downright chilling as lines of people churn through the system day in and day out...

who is your attorney?

Sterling- How many people fit on your stoop? Can we come celebrate if you win the case? Good luck. (Have been reading about the story in the Brooklyn paper, but didn't see this thread and didn't know you were the stoop-drinking dude.)

daver wrote: Last time I checked, the Supreme Court has upheld that refusal of consent to search constitutes probable cause.

is this the US supreme court youre talking about? if so, this is not true.

rhodamine wrote: [quote=daver]Last time I checked, the Supreme Court has upheld that refusal of consent to search constitutes probable cause.

is this the US supreme court youre talking about? if so, this is not true.

During the course of a search an officer may develop reasonable suspicion or probable cause; once this has been developed the individual loses the right to revoke consent. However, in United States v. Fuentes, the court found the “[m]ere refusal to consent to a stop or search does not give rise to reasonable suspicion or probable cause.”[3]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consent_searches

http://www.irishfreedomcommittee.net/IFC_INFO/JUSTSAYNO_a_guide_for_activists.htm

(no idea what this has to do with the rest of this thread, but it's an area I'm interested in . . .)

pitu wrote: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consent_searches

exactly. ergo, im assuming youre agreeing with my point?

i think we need to have a drink-in, where the whole nabe sits on stoops and drinks

my favorite was when a cop pulled up to a stoop-party in progress and waived one of the drinkers to come over to his car and speak to him. the guy sat down his beer and started walking over, at which point the cop said "no, its ok, you can bring that too". my friend did, and was promptly cited for it when he arrived at the officer's car window.

i mean, my friend should have known better, but for real.

maybe its not so much just cause that we need to worry about as it is entrapment. the nypd loves pulling shit like this on citizens, especially when they dont even have to get out of their car to ticket you!

brooklynpotter wrote: i think we need to have a drink-in, where the whole nabe sits on stoops and drinks

Best. Idea. Ever!

Case dismissed:

http://brooklynpaper.com/stories/32/7/32_7_gk_kimber.html

Don't roll-over and accept these tickets, folks...

VanRy hoped that winning the case on the merits would forever prevent cops from ticketing people for a quiet beer on their private steps, so Tuesday’s dismissal was a little unsatisfying.

makes you wonder if they took almost a year to bring that BS case to trial for a reason, hahaha...

sterling2000 wrote: Case dismissed:

http://brooklynpaper.com/stories/32/7/32_7_gk_kimber.html

Don't roll-over and accept these tickets, folks...

woo hoo!
(ok, it's lame that they drew it out to dismissal)

Congrats, and way to take one for the team! I'm a little disappointed though, as I was hoping that your trial would provide some case law for this seemingly vague law that's open to some pretty broad interpretation.

Sterling--Congrats. I think HS Thompson would have been proud of you or at the very least he would have written something very entertaining about your travails in court. (for some reason I picture him in court fighting for the right to do mescaline on his front stoop and it all going very very badly) It's been interesting following your case.

sterling2000 wrote: Case dismissed:

http://brooklynpaper.com/stories/32/7/32_7_gk_kimber.html

Don't roll-over and accept these tickets, folks...

So, when's the Sierra Nevada endorsement gonna happen?

Chalk one up for the good guys!

silverager wrote: Chalk one up for the good guys!

a staggering, almost laughable delay and a dismissed case leading to no chance to prove a point on the record or make any lasting difference?

doesnt sound like a win for the good guys to me, it sounds like just another example of how the system perpetually screws people, one way or another.

i mean, congrats for sure... just saying. lets not give more credit than is due to our legal system.

if i was the guy in question, i would be livid at the surely hundreds of hours of stress and anxiety this had caused me, and id want a little more than to have my case dismissed on a technicality so long after i was charged. thats ludicrous.

There was a small blurb about it in the Daily News today and according to that article SN said they'd "send something to celebrate." Probably a t-shirt.

rhodamine wrote: [quote=silverager]Chalk one up for the good guys!

a staggering, almost laughable delay and a dismissed case leading to no chance to prove a point on the record or make any lasting difference?

doesnt sound like a win for the good guys to me, it sounds like just another example of how the system perpetually screws people, one way or another.

i mean, congrats for sure... just saying. lets not give more credit than is due to our legal system.

if i was the guy in question, i would be livid at the surely hundreds of hours of stress and anxiety this had caused me, and id want a little more than to have my case dismissed on a technicality so long after i was charged. thats ludicrous.

exactly. This is the "wear them out" method of justice, in which a cop arrests or tickets someone for doing something they may not be able to prove, however: The person is likley to pay the fine just ot make the charge go away, or the charge will be dismissed if they choose to fight it.

Either way, the cop wins: The person is unlikely to engage in the behavior again.

Would you drink on your stoop again if it took four court appearances to get it dismissed? I wouldn't.

P.S. Look, I actually assume that the cop objected to the behavior, as opposed to stating that they were bored and/or needed to meet a quota. Does this make me pro-cop?

sterling2000 wrote: Case dismissed:

http://brooklynpaper.com/stories/32/7/32_7_gk_kimber.html

Don't roll-over and accept these tickets, folks...

I'll take any victory I can. Woohoo!

Another piece in todays NYT

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/27/nyregion/27nyc.html?_r=1&ref=nyregion


Congrats Sterling2000!

Ah Sterling, you are my hero.

(bows)

BRAVO Sterling!

Savoring the Illicit Thrill of a Glass of Something, Outside

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/18/nyregion/drinking-on-stoops-is-illegal-in-new-york-but-popular.html?_r=1&partner=rss&emc=rss